Jesus would have been a libertarian if He was around today. Wasn't it God Himself who gave us freedom of choice? Just like charity should be a personal choice and has been distorted by socialists to make it seem that charity should be administered by the government, individual liberty is bening subverted by so called conservatives who say that our choices should also be administered by the government. They say that marijuana is evil and should be kept illegal ye thty eignore that it was their God who actually made marijuana and all the other plants in the Garden of Eden. There was only one plant that we were not allowed to touch or eat of it's fruit and I don't think it was marijuana. So to advocate one or more plants that God made and said in Genesis "it is good and for your use" is to say that God made a mistake. That He wasn't wise because He didn't know what we would do might be evil. Yet we also ignore Jesus too when He said "it's not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out". We also ignore Paul when he said "happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he does".

I wonder what some people think "libertarian" really means?

I was answering this post and some things Tman said. Yes some are talking about the LP on this thread so you get off your high horse.

PS Many of Ron Paul supporters are LP and he has many of the same views. And yes I know he is pro life.

Does Santorum (or any one else for that matter) have a plan to pay off the national debt ($16 trillion) in the next 20 or 30 years?

If not how can they be called "conservative?"

DaveW,

Ron Paul is the only one who has proposed major cuts. $1 Trillion in the first year alone. No one else has proposed even 1/10 of that. He's the only one who seems to understand what kind of terrible debt we're in and that the Obama administration isn't doing anything to stop it and that the other candidates aren't either. Paul has also never voted for an unbalanced budget or for an increase in the debt ceiling. Here's his plan on the economy and the national debt: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/economy/

JohnB,

This thread is about Rick Santorum not being a conservative. If wanting to keep taxes low, wanting low regulation and wanting the government out of my bedroom is libertarian, you can use that word to describe me, but most people call it conservative. Those are the SPECIFIC issues that rick Santorum brought up to speak AGAINST. Those are issues that conservatives have claimed as their issues for as long as I can remember. Rick Santorum is not a conservative and that's the point of this thread. Ron Paul supports some of the things that libertarians supports but he's prolife, so I don't know why you even brought that issue up. It really just seems like you're trying to distract from some really bad comments Santorum has made that show he's a lot more like our current President than a conservative.

RP does have some good points and that is one of them. Problem he is not going to get the nomination and will not be president. My hope is that he has enough support to be a power broker at the convention and get some of his better ides in the GOP platform.

Okay, Olddad, you can bash libertarians if you like, but if you're a conservative as you claim to be, how could you possibly vote for Santorum with such an extreme record of supporting unions (who I know you don't like)? And here's a list that's not even complete:

Voting to RAISE the debt ceiling five times;

Voting with Ted Kennedy on multiple occasions to support the Big Labor Unions agenda;

Supporting raising taxes on oil companies, which directly costs Americans more money out of their pockets at the gas pump;

Urging more federal involvement in housing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;

Voting to create a brand new, unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson - creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities;

Endorsing liberal Big Government RINOs like Arlen Specter over conservatives. Of course, Specter became a Democrat and worked hand-in-glove with President Obama to pass his radical agenda;

Voting for Sarbanes-Oxley, which imposed dramatic new job-killing accounting regulations on businesses;

Voting for gun control;

Voting to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, while voting against an additional 1,000 border patrol agents;

Voting to send hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest provider of abortion – and to hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to enemies of Israel.

He OPPOSED the right to work act and instead voted to give unions more control and hurt non-unionized workers

Rick Santorum is NOT a conservative. With the exception of talking like a social conservative, he's a bigger liberal than Romney. He might as well be Barack Santorum!

When did I say I'm supporting Santorum?

But maybe you're right - I should become a Paulinista Libertarian and support the people's right to smoke weed.

Ron Paul is the only one who has proposed major cuts. $1 Trillion in the first year alone.

Hows he going to do that? He will have no support in Congress from either party. He's never been anything but an anti-gadfly, and has never shown the ability to build a legislative coalition or persuade other MOC's to his points of view.

Even if Paul was elected, he cannot unilaterally deliver on any of his big political promises.

Ron Paul is the only one who has proposed major cuts. $1 Trillion in the first year alone.

Hows he going to do that? He will have no support in Congress from either party. He's never been anything but an anti-gadfly, and has never shown the ability to build a legislative coalition or persuade other MOC's to his points of view.

Even if Paul was elected, he cannot unilaterally deliver on any of his big political promises.

Oh sure, let's just elect another sorry politician because the guy who will actually do the right things will be surrounded by too many thieves who won't agree with him. Really? Or, the American people could see that President Paul was trying to save the country and its currency from massive debt and the politicians weren't playing ball. That's when the power of voting comes in and we vote the bums out.

Besides, at least we'd know with a President Paul that new wasteful spending WOULD NOT happen. And there at least would be more cuts than with the others.

Using your logic, hey, the Bulls should never have signed Michael Jordan because he was way too good for the other guys on his team and they couldn't play on his level.

When someone is elected President the party comes to play ball in a hurry especially if they see that their constituents demand it. You don't vote for more of the same just because it will be easier for them to get more of the same. Look where that's gotten us.

Paul is not going to be president. The choice will be Obama or one of the other 3 GOP candidates. I will take any of them over Obama. But I guess it makes some folks feel superior to take their marbles and go home because their favorite did not win. That is childish and dumb. There are several folks I would rather see running but they are not. Ron Paul has shown zero chance of willing. He has not proven any ability to get enough support to win a single state. Yet folks keep acting like he is the second coming of Christ. There is plenty of mud to sling in Ron Paul's direction I just don't see the sense of smearing every GOP candidate. I will vote for the GOP nominee because that will be the only person that has a chance of beating Obama. Neither Ron Paul nor his supporters will make that commitment. This thread is actually about trying to pump up Ron Paul by slamming the latest winning GOP candidate. If you had not tied you hopes to a losing candidate you would not need these tactics. That is the same thing that has really turned me off of Romney.

John, you are right. "Unnamed Republican" polls better against Obama than Paul does.

I have not selected a candidate - and honestly do not know who I will support in our state's primary.

I do know I will not support Paul.

Of course, according to the Paulinistas on here, I've made that decision because I am clueless about history, don't understand the Constitution, am a mindless sheep letting the media lead me by the nose, and am generally stupid.

I'm sure this will prompt even more condescension, patronizing book-length posts, and proganda videos from the Paulinista regime - as it always seems to do.

It's true what Pat Kerby said, "The way the Republican party treats Ron Paul is like a sinking ship shooting torpedoes at the rescue boat."

I can't help that Santorum said those things. He did. It has nothing to do with Ron Paul. He didn't make Santorum say those things and they weren't invented. Santorum said those things. Words and the truth should matter. Especially when you gain nothing by getting someone in with an "R" beside his name who is simply going to act like Obama.

Please watch your tone. I'm not being rude to you but you seem to depend more on rudeness than discussing with facts. The other two candidates, Mitt and Newt are just as bad if not worse than Santorum. Mitt and Newt both supported Government healthcare until they started running for President and Newt supported cap and trade (remember his commercial with his buddy Pelosi?). They are both RINOs like Santorum. Just more of the same.

Got to get the GOP nomination to have a run against Obama and that is not going to happen. I could drag out every dumb thing Paul has said and the letters that have gone out in his name but I don't choose to play that game and drag down every person that has a chance of beating Obama. Paul won't get the GOP and can not win as a third party.